In accordance with normal RadNet protocol, EPA will be analyzing milk and drinking water samples on a quarterly basis and precipitation samples as part of a monthly composite. The next round of milk and drinking water sampling will take place in approximately three months.




US Radiation Monitoring May Have Been Handed Off To Nuclear Industry Lobbyists
November 4th, 2011 | Add a Comment
Lucas W Hixson may have uncovered a major abuse of the public trust by the NRC. In late March 2011 the NRC issued a directive that allowed the nuclear industry lobbyist group NEI to supply radiation monitoring data to the NRC who would then forward it to the EPA. March 24th the NRC discussed handing over radiation monitoring to nuclear industry lobbyists, April 14th RadNet was shut down and went back to routine monitoring schedules. This meant no ongoing food,water and air filter testing. Only the radiation level monitors were left operating. The EPA claimed that levels were going down as the reason for shutting down the expanded monitoring, but places like Idaho did not have the decreases seen at other sites.

The NRC directive put commercial nuclear power plant owners in charge of voluntarily providing the public with radiation monitoring data but it would be run through their nuclear industry lobbyists before it would then be provided to the NRC. Raw data was not provided directly to the NRC. Considering the massive US nuclear industry offensive to flood the media with propaganda downplaying the Fukushima nuclear disaster, they are hardly a reliable source to tell the public what the radiation levels are.

RadNet itself had many problems, stations didn’t work, some were not calibrated before the disaster. Even more disturbing is that the EPA does not even handle their own radiation monitoring network. The important function falls to a former Bush administration appointee running a business out of a rundown storefront in New Mexico. Under a $238,000 no bid contract Environmental Dimensions supposedly manages, maintains and operates RadNet, the only tool the public has to see if we are being subjected to nuclear fallout. The blogger that broke this story states that Environmental Dimensions has tripled their revenue in recent years. The company cites a different address as their mailing address. This shows up as a tiny house in Albuquerque. EDI was also part of a 12 million dollar contract in 2010 along with a couple of other contractors. The contract provides environmental & remediation services to the US Corps of Engineers. EDI claims to have been in business since 1990 but owner, Ms. Bradshaw worked for the DoD in 2006.

What little system the public has for radiation notification through the EPA has been shuffled off to a no bid contract with spurious origins and the system experienced widespread problems when it was needed most. That system was mostly turned off just over a month after the disaster. The NRC, the agency tasked with protecting the public from nuclear disasters decided to hand everything over to the nuclear industry’s lobbyists.

We will have more on the EPA RadNet issue in an upcoming article.

Use your god damn voice

This is a public agency use your voice let them know u want continued emergency testing.here's contact info for region 9


Update rain precipitation contamination in Southern California

Update rain precipitation contamination in Santa Monica, Southern CAL area:

Michael Collins of the EnviroReporter.com Radiation Station in Santa Monica, CA reports in a May 9th update that just completed testing of precipitation at the Radiation Station was found to be 42.2% above normal background.

Since the EPA is still

Since the EPA is still reporting gross beta air concentrations for major population areas (gross beta findings are not broken down into various radionuclide concentration levels), I decided to try charting daily gross beta EPA levels for a number of major California cities/areas across the State. Over the past week the findings have been upward trending across the State, with some exceptions (such as San Francisco). Someone suggested, however, that in the case of Los Angeles, prior to the March 18th arrival of Fukushima jet stream plume radiation particles (and prior to the Japan earthquake itself), there were some cases, where numbers already were over 100 CPMs for Los Angeles. So, I decided to do a check. I went back 51 days from March 17th (in effect pre-Fukushima radiation arrival to the West Coast; and then I went forward 51 days, March 18th to May 6th. I counted all the days prior to March 18th, and all the days from March 18th forward; and noted how many of these days came up 100 CPMs, or more. (*Please note, these are approximated numbers only. I may have missed one or two of the counts, but still I feel these numbers are fairly representative of pre and post March 18th Los Angeles gross beta numbers, posting at over 100 or more CPMs.)

Guess what? There were 16 days in the 51 days prior to March 18th, which showed 100 or more CPMs. There were 13 days of the 51 days, March 18th and after, which showed 100 or more CPMs. Very, very, very discouraging. For Los Angeles, at least, charting EPA gross beta CPMs across time does not appear to be an effective way to monitor for Fukushima radiation particles at this time. Still, perhaps, charting Northern to Southern California may shed some radiating light, so to speak. But, then again, maybe not.

It is extremely disappointing, and I feel unethical, that the EPA has stopped testing for the concentrations of various types of radiation found across the United States. And, yes I know, the EPA has said there simply is no Fukushima radiation problem right now. Yet, how can any of us take corrective action of any sort, when there is essentially nothing upon which to base our judgements for a particular place/time.

BRAUM please keep testing away.
I just wish you were also down here in Los Angeles....
And, bless you guys!

EPA Hasn't Reported Air Results since 4/10

They say they are going to continue testing air samples.
But, they haven't done so since 4/10.

Ap story

EPA ratchets down radiation samples in milk, water


Today's radionuclide EPA

Today's radionuclide EPA Radnet findings for several areas still reporting: (9:10pm, Thurs, 5/5/2011)

Los Angeles is upward trending, now spiking at: +100 CPMs
Riverside is downward trending and is now about: c. 100 CPMs
Sacramento is again spiking at about: c. 100 CPMs
San Bernadino is now downward trending at about: c. 80 CPMs
San Diego is upward trending, now spiking at: +100 CPMs

San Francisco appears to continue to be: within normal range of reporting

Happy Cinco De Mayo!

Friday EPA Radnet posts for several areas still reporting, 5/6

Friday, 5/6/2011):

Los Angeles upward trending, peaking at: c. 145 CPMs
Riverside upward trending, peaking about: c. 175 CPMs
Sacramento: was not charting
San Bernadino upward trending, peaking at about: c. 135 CPMs
San Diego upward trending, spiking at: +105-110 CPMs

San Francisco appeared to continue to be: within normal range of reporting

Happy Mother's Day Weekend!

Los Angeles upward trending,

Los Angeles upward trending, peaking at: c. 145 CPMs
---> Currently is "being reviewed". While the recent spikes
are higher, there were spikes to just over 100 CPM before
the earthquake and before the fallout reached the US.


Riverside upward trending, peaking about: c. 175 CPMs
---> Currently 52 CPM. Highs were in the 80 CPM range as
early as 3/14.


Sacramento: was not charting
---> Currently is "being reviewed". The Sacramento monitor doesn't
appear to be working properly.


San Bernadino upward trending, peaking at about: c. 135 CPMs
---> Current is 46. No data in the graph prior to 3/21


San Diego upward trending, spiking at: +105-110 CPMs
---> Currently is "being reviewed". No data in the graph until
3/20. and looks like the monitor was defective up until at
least 3/30.


San Francisco appeared to continue to be: within normal range of reporting
---> Currently is 9.


Seems to be cyclic

The CPM seem to ramp up around 10:00 (UTC I think) and ramp down around
18:00 in most locations in S. Calif. Which, if the times are UTC, that
would be 3am and 1pm local time. Not sure what factors into those cycles.
10:00 and 18:00 local time would make more sense to me, given the position
of the sun.


Probably gain drift with temperature

Very good observation. If you follow that link, and then do a database search and include the ambient temperature data, you can make a scatter plot of one of the gamma range rates versus temperature and see a pretty clear anticorrelation between gamma rates and temperature -- when temperature goes down, rates go up. This could lead to the 24-hour cycle in the RadNet data.

If RadNet is using sodium iodide detectors or some other kind of scintillator crystal, the gain can change with temperature. That is, unless there is some sort of automatic compensation for temperature (e.g., this system), the shape of the gamma-ray spectrum measured by the detector will change slightly with temperature.

As has been mentioned by other team members, we don't know too much about the specifics of RadNet and our word is not authoritative. We have cautioned against reading too much into the data, though, since the data that is presented is raw (counts per minute) with little interpretation.

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

Thanks for the science/math

Thanks for the science/math stuff, guys. You are wonderful! Seems just as I air out my house (the air conditioner is breaking), the radioactive concentrations hit maximum levels. Fun. Fun. Great. Will keep you posted on weather news, so to speak. P.S. There is a new fawn on the hillside behind my house. Bambi with lots of spots. Hope she/he is OK....)


I know that I have previously posted this as a separate topic, but I want to also make a case here for CALLING YOUR WATER COMPANY!

As paying customers, we should have some influence over our water company. They really do need to test, and test regularly, as long as Fukushima is spewing dangerous radiation into the atmosphere.

We buy water from these companies and we have every right to call them and insist that they test regularly (especially reservoirs). The fact that they are local, as opposed to the EPA, should give us more leverage and help us garner more support on the local level.

This is water that we are drinking, giving to our children, using to make baby formula. So, our concern is serious and it is rational.

The results of these tests will be made public (I hope!), like all the routine water testing that already goes on. IF there are levels of radiation that are worrisome, then I do believe that it would provide good leverage to insist that the EPA do more frequent-and transparent-monitoring.

Also, water and soil can be privately tested. Which may be a beginning.

Does anyone know...


the exact date that the EPA is supposed to raise the radiation safety limits?

I wonder if that might have something to do with going back to quarterly monitoring.

[Source: http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1325]

Lab Data air filters

This has been determined to be a non event! .the EPA has analyzed hundreds of air filters to there credit and u can look at data and judge for yourself I know it's nano levels but it does concern me i am no scientist but there are huge variations in readings meaning soil accumulation of cesium variance is for sure..every one this is where are long term exposure is going to come from and honestly no one cares to know cesium levels in soil who tests soil ?nada .brawm won't even tell me if a central valley sample has been analized .any how check the lab analyzation for air filters.


BRAWM Data Shows Decreasing Levels

The BRAWM data shows decreasing levels for all isotopes across
their food chain samples *except* cesium in topsoil as well as
iodine and cesium in milk. I would *guess* that those two areas
would be the last to drop off. I'm sure the EPA is seeing the same
thing in their samples and has determined the worst is over. And
that the worst levels were "far below levels of concern". So, why
burn tax dollars testing for what they already know? They are
continuing their air monitoring. So, if something shows up, they
can ramp up the other testing again. We have to remember that the
EPA testing of precipitation, drinking water and milk all started
because of the air results that showed isotopes were here in the
first place.

Conspiracy theories aside, while I'd love for the EPA to test
everything everyday just for my peace of mind, their plan makes
sense to me.

No, it doesn't make sense

No, it doesn't make sense while the crisis in Japan is ONGOING. Until those plants are not longer emitting this stuff into the air, the EPA should be testing. Testing on this side of hte Pacific is one of the only ways we have of knowing what nastiness those reactors are spewing. What if there's another explosion, a complete meltdown in another reactor (and they don't tell us). They are actively hiding information. Our government needs to be vigilant and needs to monitor. Why else does the EPA exist?? And frankly, now that I now the state of some of our homegrown reactors, i would like them to test regularly - forever.

EPA was sued by sierra

EPA was sued by Sierra club just to implement standards of radionuclide release from our domestic plants so don't think there about our safety one bit sorry but this is the truth .if u care to know a little history read Pg 1.


I read that from the earlier post

But, if you believe they can't be trusted, why would you care
if they continued testing? Unless you take comfort in reports
from an agency you don't trust :-)

If it's not in the air....

If it's not in the air, it's not being added to the rest of the

The EPA said the following in their web site:

"EPA will continue to analyze air filters and cartridges from all air
monitors as they arrive at the laboratory and will post the data as

Regarding your statement "Until those plants are not longer emitting
this stuff into the air, the EPA should be testing", that's what they
said they are going to do. Test the air. And they said:

"EPA continues to work with federal partners to monitor the situation
in Japan and stands prepared to accelerate radiation sampling and analysis
if the need arises"

Another explosion, another complete meltdown in another reactor (we'll know) or detecting isotopes again in the air would create the "need".

Other than that, can you explain why you feel it's necessary to test
other medium when the main medium for delivering it (air) doesn't contain

It's a conundrum


How will anyone know if it's in the air if no one is testing?

It's nonsensical to end testing. Period.

The EPA ***IS*** Still Testing Air

"EPA will continue to analyze air filters and cartridges from all air
monitors as they arrive at the laboratory and will post the data as

I haven't heard anything to the contrary.

It's interesting...


that there are whispers of Uranium and Plutonium being here, and the EPA slows down their monitoring.

It's probably just a coincidence.

Read more about it here:

High Readings on RadNet in some areas today

Just looked at RadNet this AM (Wed, May 4th, 8:40 AM) and wow, some of these reading today are disturbing. Beta Gross Count Rates (CPM) as follows:
Riverside, CA 82
Anaheim, CA 66
Phoenix 157
Tucson 77
Austin, TX 106
and the winner is....
Amarillo, TX 346

Amarillo has been really high for days now.

Can anyone address this?????

Now, really, with numbers like these, how can the EPA pull back????

Japan reportedly did not

Japan reportedly did not report radiation contamination levels, reportedly because of governmental fears of mass hysteria...

So, EPA pullback in the U.S.--- maybe for damage control.
Or, maybe the lack of adequate funding to keep reporting.
I certainly am running out of money...

Has it occurred to anyone

Has it occurred to anyone that Radnet is unreliable and these stations are probably broken?

No other monitoring, Blackcat, Radiation Network, BRAWM, Arizona and Nevada community detection, etc has detected anything remotely reaching these numbers? Most Geiger counters will do Beta/Gamma gross, so they all should see something if beta levels were as high as the EPA is reporting.

The EPA data sources are statistical outliers at this point and should be ignored.

From my

From my understanding:
Blackcat and Radiation Network have far, far, far fewer monitoring networks than the EPA's Radnet monitoring system. The same is true of the other monitoring stations mentioned above. The set up of the Blackcats and the Radiation Networks' monitoring stations (the latter which consists of many different types/brands of geiger counters and set-up methods) is not standardized. Each different type of monitoring station's particular type of equipment will log in different sets of numbers, depending on the type of monitor, and depending upon the manner in which it was set up. Could be wrong, could be very wrong, but I believe that the EPA's stations are set up in a standardized, prescribed manner, using the same type/brand of monitoring equipment. Yes, it is extremely frustrating that at any given time, many of the EPA monitoring network stations appear to be, or are said to be down, or broken. EPA radnet reporting/monitoring stations, nevertheless, appear to be set up in a similar, standardized fashion. So, we can better compare different geographical areas... at least somewhat we can better compare different geographical areas.

It is important to compare apples to apples; and, oranges to oranges. Ultimately, what in the end matters for the interpretations of the various radnet monitoring stations are changes that occur over a period of time obtained from a given monitoring station.

And, yes, I am frustrated, too.
Los Angeles

RadNet highs

Well, the RADNET readings DO change, so I am assuming that they must have some informative value--even with respect to just the fluctuations of their own readings at each geographically specified spot.


I think what Anonymous means is that you can't interpret anything from a day's readings or even a few days' readings because of the noise that comes from varying background levels, different monitoring instruments and techniques, etc.: what you need to be looking for is a significant trend across several monitoring locations that shows a strong signal. Does that make sense?

That's just amazing. It's

That's just amazing. It's the people's tax dollars that foot the bill for the tests and I'm sure most people would want it to continue.

But, are most people willing to pay for it?

It's fine to say that you want it. But, the EPA only has so much
budget. Are you willing to lobby for additional EPa budget? Especially
if that extra budget probably won't show anything different than we've
already seen? I think, once faced with the fiscal and measurement facts,
most would drop the fight.

What about getting Lawrence Livermore Labs on the case?

Lawrence Livermore has been on this since day 1.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is the home of NARAC - the National Atmospheric Advisory Center:


"The National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center, NARAC, provides tools and services to the Federal Government, that map the probable spread of hazardous material accidentally or intentionally released into the atmosphere. NARAC provides atmospheric plume predictions in time for an emergency manager to decide if taking protective action is necessary to protect the health and safety of people in affected areas."

You can be sure that President Obama and DOE Secretary Chu have the best possible assessments of the Fukushima accident.


"In addition to the CTBTO projections, several groups inside the United States are responsible for tracking any release of radioactive particles, including the long-time nuclear experts at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laborartory.

"If there were a significant release, they would probably know where it's going," Toon said."

Again, President Obama and DOE Secretary Chu know the complete story.

We spend VERY little on EPA

We spend VERY little on EPA relative to what we spend on other things. Their budget is always being cut. Yes, I am - and have - lobbied for additional funds for EPA to monitor not only this but also to regulate other industries (coal, automotive emmissions, toxic waste, etc). To do otherwise is penny-wise pound-foolish. It's the corporate lap dog members of congress who always work to cut EPA's budget because they don't want an agency restricting these industries from polluting as much as they want.

Maybe if we ended just ONE of our many wars, we could pay for it...

In missiles alone, the first

In missiles alone, the first day of enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya cost the United States $100 million.


Ii seems like there is plenty of money. Couldn't we just hold back a couple of missiles and keep the testing going?

I didn't say there wasn't money in the US budget

But, last I looked, missles were not in the ***EPA*** budget.
So, my question still stands. Are you willing to lobby for
additional EPA budget? Because it will take you and a lot
more of the voting public to push for funds (military or
otherwise) to be shifted to the EPA for continued monitoring
and lab analysis. Either that or re-prioritzation of budget
within the EPA. And I'm sure there is A LOT of re-prioritization
that can be done within the EPA. But, good luck with that
in such a bureaucracy.

Just direct all the EPA

Just direct all the EPA money to the nuclear industrial complex and shut up already.

Thanks for your brilliant

Thanks for your brilliant contribution. It really helps solve problems
and moves the human race forward.....

EPA is letting down the American people

The EPA is letting down the American people. Seems like it is time to do more independent testing, even if we have to private pay for such testing. I think that people want to know what is in their gardens, on their lawns and in their water. Maybe dust wipes in their homes...

Clearly, the BRAWN team cannot carry the load for the entire US.

Can anyone recommend certified labs that are qualified to do this testing?

Also, I would ask that individuals who indeed have this testing done in their own backyards and homes, post these results.

To protect privacy, the results could be simple geographic references, such as "Grass from a backyard in Santa Maria, CA." along with the lab's notes. The results could be posted by state and secondarily, by type of material tested. Certified labs could be posted, along with their protocols for collecting and submitting samples. The client could give the lab permission to post the results directly to the site, with geographic notations as mentioned above.

Certainly, this would not be up the the scientific standards of the BRAWN team, and we would have no clear "chain of command," and other protocols. However, with enough data from enough people, we might begin to see a pattern emerge of what has landed where. Really, what are our other options? Any other ideas about this? Naturally, this does not mean that we should not keep demanding better and more frequent testing from the EPA, I am surely not suggesting that.

EPA doesn't work for the American people

They work for the Military-Industrial Complex.


I don't think you understand the function of the Environmental Protection Agency. Have you ever met a person who works for them? Have you ever wondered why people might want to have a career in environmental protection? The agency is full of scientists of integrity who care about environmental health and human safety. I have worked with them directly on projects involving water quality in rivers, etc. and have never met a person who had ulterior motives.

I totally agree. I have

I totally agree. I have worked with many people in the EPA and it is not some corrupt agency. During the Bush years they did work to remove people who weren't corporate friendly and put in more political appointees (particularly at the higher level), but for the most part it is full of scientists and people who care (they don't make a lot of money). The problem with the EPA is that it is only as good as the Congress that DIRECTS it's budget and directs what it can and cannot work on. It needs money and it needs a mandate to regulate! It's Congress and the President that need to hear from us, not the civil servants at the EPA.

I don't know if this is

I don't know if this is where I need to post but it seems the right place. I live in Orange County CA and the past couple days have been very hot and windy. Today I noticed near a vent a white powder all over the floor. I touched it and it is chaulky. It would be a very good medium for anyone who is able to test it. I've lived in this home for 5 years and NEVER had anything like it before.

You touched it??? You're DOOMED!!!

Didn't your mother ever tell you not to touch strange powders?

You're DOOMED!!!